What kind of democracy would we live in if it didn’t include the work of a thousand-or-so newspaper reporters and editors who currently cover politics, government, justice, business, economics, social issues, the professions, the arts and other important subjects?
We may be about to find out.
Because it’s now apparent, as a result of the release of Fairfax Media’s latest financial report last week, that the print versions of three of Australia’s four “serious” newspapers — The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian — operate at a financial loss, while the fourth, the Financial Review, has seen its profits halved in the past two years.
That’s bad news for their shareholders. But it could be even worse news for the stakeholders in Australian democracy, who depend heavily on the independent scrutiny carried out by those thousand journalists (as well as hundreds more at the ABC and other serious media outlets).
The commercial model that has historically funded large-scale “public trust” print journalism is collapsing, and so far in the media revolution nothing on the same scale has emerged to replace it. Although this trend has been evolving for several years, it has reached a new inflection point this year due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors.
Which raises a seminal question: if the free market can no longer fund it, should quality civic journalism be supported by some form of government funding? As it is in countries such as France and Sweden.
Such a suggestion may seem radical. But if government support becomes the only way to maintain “public trust” journalism — just as government support is the primary funding source of the arts, culture, museums and libraries — surely that’s preferable to watching it disappear.
Time for an Australian Publishing Corporation to complement the Australian Broadcasting Corporation?
The Australian Government already funds quality civic journalism in the ABC and the SBS. There is no need for it to subsidise journalism on dead trees, papyrus, tablets or any other old medium.
Beecher’s Crikey rightly derides rent-seeking industries seeking to suckle from the teat of public money, right up to the point where it’s their own industry threatened, at which time rent-seeking subsidies by industry becomes OK, as long as they approve.
The stench of self righteous hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Eric, go and talk to Bernard Keane about his thoughts on protectionism and then come back and explain to the readers why newspapers deserve protection, for the sake of journalism, but manufacturing doesn’t. Good journalism, “public trust” journalism, has nothing to do with blank ink on white sheets of paper! Good journalism is about the ability to perform diligent research, make innovative connection, provide insightful analysis and last, but not least, to wrap it up with eloquent storytelling.
I take your point that good journalists need employment and to feed themselves. But, hey, the music industry is coming out the other side of the same revolution. Broadcast television is starting to feel the revolution and will struggle with change over the coming years. Why are newspapers special? You and the other Crikey journalists are a case in point. Good journalists will adapt to new media and continue to wrap their unique blend of investigation, analysis and insight with great story telling that I will pay to read.
I don’t agree with the conclusion of your analysis but I did enjoy reading it and will continue to pay for you to do so.
Please clearly define “serious” newspapers. Would you “seriously” include News Limited publications? Many don’t.
Gavin Moodie, agree, let’s get rid of fish-wrappers!